INSURANCE RIDDLES

Shannon News, 9 October 1925, Page 2

INSURANCE RIDDLES

. . MANY LITTLE PROBLEMS. . . WHAT RISKS ARE RUN. The Persian Courts were recently presented with a pretty little problem In insurance law. A company pleaded that it should not be compelled to pay under a policy since its holder lost his life in attempting to save a drowning woman, and that sucli a risky undertaking was never contemplated by it. At first sight this seems a somewhat unsportsmanlike attitude, but we must recognise that insurance companies are ordinary business undertakings which base their premiums upon the probable hazards a person will meet with during the years in which he pays them. Moreover, until legal decisions provided some stability to the law on the subject, no undertakings were more victimised than those which make us a fair w&ger on our living a certain number of years, writes a barrister.

Probably the coolest proposition which' was ever put to a court was that of a woman -who murdered her husband and then claimed under a policy which he had taken out in her favour.- The court naturally decided that it was against public policy for the woman to receive benefit from a felonious act of her own, but the insurance company had to pay the insured amount to the representative oi the murdered husband. Nowadays most insurance companies protect themselves from havim their funds depleted by untoward happenings of this nature. Many policies will be found ,to include a clause excluding suicide, judicial execution, and possibly homicide from the causes of death under which they are prepared to pay. Such exceptions are valid, and Vvill be upheld by tincourts. Before these clauses were included in policies many riddles were presented to the law courts for solution. There was the stoic, for example, who, having become seriously embarrassed in 'nis. affairs, invited his creditors and his insurers to dinner. After the meal he presented his creditors to his insurers with these words; owe those, gentlemen more than 1 can pay them. Nor do I know of anybody who will pay them except yourselves.” Then lie shot himself.

Of less dramatic nature, although equally unfair to the company concerned, was- the scheme adopted by an American to provide for his family. Finding himself at the end of his 1 ether, he expended the little mon'ey he had left in taking out several life insurance policies. Once in possession of these he committed suicide. Fortunately for the insurance corhpany, if unfortunate for his dependents, it was held that the proposition was fraudulent from the beginning, and that the company need not pay. In cases of suicide 'and judicial execution, even apart from special provision in the policy, there is now littledoubt that insurance companies would not be held liable, although quite recently it was publicly suggested that a company would be compelled to pay if a policy holder met his death on the scaffold. There is still a doubt concerning suicide during temporary insanity, one judge stating that insanity was a calamity which might fall on any of us. Should a case of this nature come info court, the defence raised by an ingenious American company might be submitted. It pleaded that, the insanity of the holder imm<> diately vitiated the contract between them, and that the policy was voic before he took his life. If the law of life insurance is full of curious stories, that concerning accident insurance is largely composed of hair-splitting decisions as to what an accident is. But it is interesting to note that murder is an accident according to insurance law, and the insurers of Dickman’s victim, in the Morpeth train crime some years ago, were held liable under their contract.